Phil wrote <heavily edited>: >You may be quite interested in an email I got from TNA after I challenged >their statistics about WW1 Medal cards. > >A formal random sampling of 2,000 cards was carried out in March this year, >to inform TNA whether the past users' "gut feeling" on this was correct. >Soldiers' cards bearing addresses were found in 0.65% of the cards sampled. > >By my count, if there were 5 million cards, as many as 33,000 cards with an >address on the reverse were about to be lost > >The sample size is rather small to be stastistically significant. > >So, who knows, there might be over 100,000 addresses in limbo. This guess of 100,000 is not born out by the statistics. Although 2000 cards out of an estimated 5 million may seem rather small, in fact statistically this is classified as a large sample. Had the number of 'hits' been around 50% then we would be talking of a variation of plus or minus 2% giving a range of 48% to 52% with 95% probability of this being correct. The problem in the case of these cards is that the percentage 'hits' is less than 1% which means that the range of certainty is much wider. With a 95% confidence (odds of 19 to 1 that this is correct) a result of 0.65% has a range of plus or minus 0.36% i.e. 0.29% to 1.01%. The outcome of all these percentages is that the estimated number of cards with addresses on the reverse, based on five million cards, is 14,500 to 50,500. A long way short of 100,000. The key to this is the requirement of a random sample. If they just looked at the first 2000 cards in the first drawer then the sample is far from random. However if they took one random card from every drawer (I estimate that there are 2002 drawers) then the sample is very fair. This is all fairly academic at the moment. The Society's Genealogy Officer has been in touch with the MoD and we understand that they are in serious discussion with a third party regarding the preservation of the cards. It has been suggested that this may be the Western Front Association, but neither party has confirmed this. It does appear that these cards will survive. Geoff Geoffrey T. Stone, SoG Mailing List Administrator. lists@sog.org.uk http://www.sog.org.uk

At 10:22 25/04/2005, Geoffrey wrote: >The key to this is the requirement of a random sample. If they just looked >at the first 2000 cards in the first drawer then the sample is far from >random. However if they took one random card from every drawer (I estimate >that there are 2002 drawers) then the sample is very fair. > >This is all fairly academic at the moment. Geoff, Since your email seems to be a "pot shot" at me, perhaps I might be allowed a Right of Reply? 1) We do not get an update on this List of developments on the WW1 Medal Cards on this List, I think. 2) Do you know whether the 2,000 cards were "randomly" selected or they went to the first 2,000 cards in a "randomly" selected filing cabinet? 3) Why is it academic? As a member of the SoG I would like to see us being kept up to date on this matter. The Quarterly Journal is not the place for tha, too infrequentt. Randomness cannot be ever achieved, random number generator algorithms on computers are notoriously fickle and one never achieves true randomness. It seems to me that had this matter not been made public, these cards would have been destroyed, period. Does TNA act on behalf of genealogists on as a revenue source for the Government? This List is for discussion and I hope that your posting was not to be seen as an attempt to stifle legitimate talk about a subject close to my heart.. My mother's father died in a most horrendous manner 10 years after the end of WW1, having been gassed by mustard gas in the WW1 trenches. Why should not I and other family historians be allowed access to the back as well as the front of each record card? I will fight to the last breath I draw to fight for freedom of access to all relevant records. Please allow us what our own government is trying to do - stifle free speech, something enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations - I would refer you too to the ECHR. "Academic" is an adjective that often underlies attempts of denial of free speech - please think twice about using it,. Geoff. My first thoughts on your amazing words. I may say more on further reflection. Phil Worried of Orpington, Kent

Dear Goeff Surely the statistics, resulting in percentages are misleading - but what's new in the day and age of spin, we may well ask........ the main considerations are that so many gave their lives - and so many were disabled for the rest of their lives - these men and women had no choice - they were sacrificed by the politicians - and their lives and those of some of their dependents were profoundly affected for as long as they lived; in conscience, their records should be preserved - at least until every shred of information has gone into safe keeping for posterity - this is in the very least the obligation we as a nation should be happy to fulfill; yes of course there are financial considerations - but having worked in the public sector all my life, I have no doubt that the funds could be made available if the will was there to do so. April Ashton On 25 Apr 2005, at 10:22, Geoffrey wrote: > Phil wrote <heavily edited>: > >> You may be quite interested in an email I got from TNA after I >> challenged >> their statistics about WW1 Medal cards. >> >> A formal random sampling of 2,000 cards was carried out in March this >> year, >> to inform TNA whether the past users' "gut feeling" on this was >> correct. >> Soldiers' cards bearing addresses were found in 0.65% of the cards >> sampled. >> >> By my count, if there were 5 million cards, as many as 33,000 cards >> with an >> address on the reverse were about to be lost >> >> The sample size is rather small to be stastistically significant. >> >> So, who knows, there might be over 100,000 addresses in limbo. > > > This guess of 100,000 is not born out by the statistics. > > Although 2000 cards out of an estimated 5 million may seem rather > small, in > fact statistically this is classified as a large sample. Had the > number of > 'hits' been around 50% then we would be talking of a variation of plus > or > minus 2% giving a range of 48% to 52% with 95% probability of this > being > correct. > > The problem in the case of these cards is that the percentage 'hits' is > less than 1% which means that the range of certainty is much wider. > > With a 95% confidence (odds of 19 to 1 that this is correct) a result > of > 0.65% has a range of plus or minus 0.36% i.e. 0.29% to 1.01%. > > The outcome of all these percentages is that the estimated number of > cards > with addresses on the reverse, based on five million cards, is 14,500 > to > 50,500. A long way short of 100,000. > > The key to this is the requirement of a random sample. If they just > looked > at the first 2000 cards in the first drawer then the sample is far from > random. However if they took one random card from every drawer (I > estimate > that there are 2002 drawers) then the sample is very fair. > > This is all fairly academic at the moment. > > The Society's Genealogy Officer has been in touch with the MoD and we > understand that they are in serious discussion with a third party > regarding > the preservation of the cards. It has been suggested that this may be > the > Western Front Association, but neither party has confirmed this. > > It does appear that these cards will survive. > > Geoff > > Geoffrey T. Stone, > SoG Mailing List Administrator. lists@sog.org.uk > http://www.sog.org.uk >

In message of 25 Apr, April Ashton <ahashton@focalplane.com> wrote: > Dear Goeff > > Surely the statistics, resulting in percentages are misleading Having done a bit of statistics in my working life, I thought Geoff's explanation was first rate with a proper regard for probabilites and degrees of confidence. It may be that some find this to be a Cloud of Unknowing but the fact is that there are statistically valid truths expressed as percentages and degrees of confidence; they are just as much truths as the old black is white lot and give a far wider account of probabilistic facts. > - but > what's new in the day and age of spin, we may well ask........ the > main considerations are that so many gave their lives - and so many > were disabled for the rest of their lives - these men and women had no > choice - they were sacrificed by the politicians - and their lives > and those of some of their dependents were profoundly affected for as > long as they lived; in conscience, their records should be preserved > - at least until every shred of information has gone into safe keeping > for posterity - this is in the very least the obligation we as a nation > should be happy to fulfill; yes of course there are financial > considerations - but having worked in the public sector all my life, I > have no doubt that the funds could be made available if the will was > there to do so. Of course funds can be made available. But they have to be found from somewhere. Either costs have to be reduced elsewhere or taxation raised. (There is much the same problem with running the Society of Genealogists save that the option of "raising taxation" - increasing subscriptions - does not seem to be with us.) But in this case the Society's view is already quite plain. See http://www.sog.org.uk/#news1 What more needs to be added to it? -- Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org              For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

At 16:37 25/04/2005, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote: >But in this case the Society's view is already quite plain. See > http://www.sog.org.uk/#news1 >What more needs to be added to it? Hi Tim, Since you asked, then perhaps a bit more news! I telephoned TNA today and I thought you might be interested in the following: 1) I telephoned and after explaining my purpose I got put through to one gentleman, who gave me a contact name Janet Hockins and a telephone number 020 8573 3837, and he added that he (anonymous) was against destruction of these cards and was on the side of family historians) 2) So I telephoned that number and found out that it was the MoD in Hayes, Mdx.Janet Hockins was not best pleased that her name and number were being handed out by TNA 3) She said that I should telephone TNA and insist they talked to me, or telephone the MoD Press Office. 4) I telephoned TNA (second time) and spoke to a lady from the Indian sub continent (from her accent) and she put me through to another gentleman. 5) Second man said that as TNA were in discussion with an (unnamed) body he could not say much. He said that TNA had been contacted by "a large number" of family historians and that a written approach would not be welcome! 6) Said TNA man could not help as to when any decision would be taken and agreed that Western Front Association were one of several bodies who had contacted TNA 7) He could not nor would TNA say any thing more and could not even say when a decision over the future of the cards would be due. 8) TNA was not even able to confirm that the future of the cards was safe. Now, it seems to me, that this is additional information to what the SoG statement says. Does the SoG as a body think that the cards are safe with TNA in control? Is TNA which is charged with making money from its on line offerings like 1901 Census a suitable body to preserve the countries' heritage? I gather from both MoD and TNA staff, that the biggest factor for their re-think was the National Press and not we family historians. That seems to say a lot for the Federation, the SoG and other bodies. Discuss! Phil.

"Phil Warn" <philwarn@ntlworld.com> wrote : <snip> > I gather from both MoD and TNA staff, that the biggest factor for their > re-think was the National Press and not we family historians. > > That seems to say a lot for the Federation, the SoG and other bodies. > > Discuss! Allowing that family historians are a minor subset of the population, while national newspapers have circulations in the hundreds of thousands and even millions, I don't find this surprising. Many more people have an interest in FH than are represented by any of the various societies and the newspapers undoubtedly latched onto the story as a consequence of this burgeoning interest. As long as everyone involved does their bit and stirs things up, does it matter who stirs it the most ? John B Leic., Eng

In message of 25 Apr, Phil Warn <philwarn@ntlworld.com> wrote: <snip of civil servants furiously passing the buck because none has the power to make decisions> > Now, it seems to me, that this is additional information to what the SoG > statement says. The Society has make an unqualified protest. I don't see any information added to that protest. > > Does the SoG as a body think that the cards are safe with TNA in control? Doubt it, but I am not that body (who is?). But the question to ask (your MP?) is what the National Archive's Job is. If it is not to archive material, what else can we say? > Is TNA which is charged with making money from its on line offerings like > 1901 Census a suitable body to preserve the countries' heritage? It is _The National Archive_ and if is isn't then all we get is another body with a similar name and function. Inventing new bodies with similar functions to older bodies (viz the replacement of MAFF by RPA) does not solve problems. You have to ask what the charter is of the body and whether: (a) That body is doing the right things by its charter and if not get their principals to do their job, or (b) The charter needs changing, so some parliamentary or government action is required. > I gather from both MoD and TNA staff, that the biggest factor for their > re-think was the National Press and not we family historians. Of course. It is not for nothing that the press is known as the Fourth Estate. > That seems to say a lot for the Federation, the SoG and other bodies. That is where you are wrong. Various people, genealogists even, made a fuss, the press picked it up (anything for a stir!) and this seems to have caused TNA to have a rethink. What if TNA had been playing a game: 1. We are short of cash, 2. We could save money by not having to rent a shed load of floor space, 3. Let's publicise some issues that could reduce the shed size and hope that someone may produce some funds to support us. A dangerous game but not beyond the Heavy Hitters in the business of getting blood out of stones. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org              For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org